Theo, it's slow going. There's some components of the SDK related to particles and barrels that I thought were there that aren't, so have to build more stuff than I was planning on. But for PBR BRDF materials, we have what we need for both OpenGL and SW.

I am a motion designer. I do a lot of advertising. There was not a single project where I did not use native 3D fusion. A lot of packshot. Many product packages. Every time you need to do fake reflection, fake refraction or other fake interactions. I almost stopped using large 3D packages. because it's a long time and you do not see the result instantly. I try to do everything in Fusion. BMD - make a raytrace!

Max Seredkin wrote:I almost stopped using large 3D packages. because it's a long time and you do not see the result instantly.

Have you tried rendering in a 3d package using something along the lines of Corona, VrayRT, or something along those lines. There are several render engines for 3d packages that will give you realtime feedback with finished quality look, especially if you are doing scenes with lighter weight geo like product packages.

...or rather than Blackmagic developing technology that they are not familiar with convince Chaos Group that it is worth their effort to develop for Fusion.

I am new to the Blackmagic world, I have spent more time in Resolve over Fusion and now realiser that Fusion is what I needed.I make audio visualisers. This is possible in Fusion.I am limited to what I know, so I know I will learn more as I go, but from what I see online, it appears to be limited to what audio interaction it can do compared to the competition.I am looking for something that rivals After Effects at this type of animation.Can I request more in depth interaction with audio effected animation design?I think this engine could easily be the new industry standard for graphic visualizers if it had more interaction with audio, it certainly wins on the animation front.

I would like a means of creating a clean Flow layout of the nodes. As in Nuke, you can create clean, 90 degree angled connections between nodes, so that the lines between nodes aren't shooting off in all different directions.

EDIT: While watching a Fusion tutorial, I found out you just hold ALT and click the connection between nodes to create an "elbow", thus allowing you to create a schematic type Flow layout. So...I guess this request has been met.

I would like to see the Polygon node be capable of containing multiple masks in one node, like Nuke has, as shown in this image.What's nice about this setup, is that you can create multiple masks, and then use the "Root" as a point where you can attach a track.

Theodor Groeneboom wrote:No, keep everything as seperate nodes is a philosophy that better suits fusion. Just stack your roto nodes one after the other and add a transform at the bottom for the same effect.

In a heavy comp nodes can get crowded. Why not give you the choice of using either a single mask node or multiple mask node? The roto node in Nuke allows you to use the Root folder as a transform point. You can also create multiple folders, with each folder acting as a transform point for masks you attach to that folder.

You’re insisting on an approach that takes up excessive space, not to mention creating redundancy. A well designed program caters to multiple workflows.

Theodor Groeneboom wrote:If multiple nodes are indeed bothering you (and how is it redundant?) ) due to the space, collaps them into a group. Stick a transform at the end and you've pretty much got a simiar setup.

I'm new to Fusion, and I didn't know about the group choice. Very cool.

Regarding Nuke's roto node, there was a time a few versions ago when the node could not handle a lot of masks. But, that time passed a long time ago. I've had Nuke roto nodes with well over 30 masks in one node without any issue. The Foundry made a lot of improvements to roto in Nuke starting back in Nuke 8.

Most of the tools fram sapphire can be built by using fusion's native tools. Check out the various glows and blur macros out there for fu And if you need something like Sapphire, just buy Sapphire then

I agree with having a better custom kernel defocus effect like Frischluft's OutOfFocus node built in, as its a bread and butter tool for matching defocus to plates which isn't available to Fu. Esoteric glows are not.

Zoom Lens tracking - without fixed 3d object LIDAR dataThe ability to edit etc all tracking points before a solveA Shadow catcher material - that only displays the material shadowa Custom 3D Shader A Ray-trace engine - that can be turned on and off ...The ability to generate a depth map from a trackbetter check in/ check out / collaboration on assets across a network with multiple usersMake point light a 3d shadow caster - not only spot light....and a magic tree that makes money

Compared to the other requests I would be happy with minor UX improvements like:

- Connecting nodes is very fiddly. making the connectors larger or ideally like in nuke drop them entirely and just connect with arrows or so. This gives a lot cleaner Flowgraph. Like Todd Groves already mentioned, Fusions Flowgraph isn't particularly pretty, even with his requested (and found) dot-connectors.Also you can't snap/align nodes to the relative position of connected nodes, like in Nuke. You can only snap/align to the flowgraphs grid, which isn't always what I need. And in combination with these (for my taste awefully looking and working) connectors you get a flowgraph that always looks kinda messy and 1995ish.

- The "Select Tool" popup should insert the node when you click it. Selecting a tool from the list and always confirming it with "OK" I find is a very annoying workflow. Plus: clicking outside the "Select Tool" popup should close it. This way the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons become redundant and the workflow feels a lot more modern, streamlined and not so 1995ish. It would also be great if there was a possibility to bring up the "Select Tool" popup with TAB instead of ctrl+space. TAB is currently not assigned to anything anyway and by calling "Select Tool" this way there is better musclememory compatability with Nuke and Houdini.

- Oh...almost forgot. Please make the center values X and Y sliders, or anything that allows for adjusting the values interactively instead of manually typing them in.

ThomasManz wrote:- Connecting nodes is very fiddly. making the connectors larger or ideally like in nuke drop them entirely and just connect with arrows or so. This gives a lot cleaner Flowgraph. Like Todd Groves already mentioned, Fusions Flowgraph isn't particularly pretty, even with his requested (and found) dot-connectors.Also you can't snap/align nodes to the relative position of connected nodes, like in Nuke. You can only snap/align to the flowgraphs grid, which isn't always what I need. And in combination with these (for my taste awefully looking and working) connectors you get a flowgraph that always looks kinda messy and 1995ish.

- The "Select Tool" popup should insert the node when you click it. Selecting a tool from the list and always confirming it with "OK" I find is a very annoying workflow. Plus: clicking outside the "Select Tool" popup should close it. This way the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons become redundant and the workflow feels a lot more modern, streamlined and not so 1995ish. It would also be great if there was a possibility to bring up the "Select Tool" popup with TAB instead of ctrl+space. TAB is currently not assigned to anything anyway and by calling "Select Tool" this way there is better musclememory compatability with Nuke and Houdini.

- Oh...almost forgot. Please make the center values X and Y sliders, or anything that allows for adjusting the values interactively instead of manually typing them in.

Just my 2 cents.

1. Right click in flow Arrange Tools > To Connected. 2. For TAB to use Add tool A) View > Customize Hotkey B) Edit your fusion.fu file to include your own Custom Scripts to run as hotkeys like "Comp_Choose_Tool)3. If you'e looking for more interactive ways to adjust X and Y positions just use the on screen controls.

Ps. If you're looking to transition from Nuke to Fusion (which includes TAB as hotkey etc) check out my scripts/guide etc here :

alan bovine wrote:1. Right click in flow Arrange Tools > To Connected. 2. For TAB to use Add tool A) View > Customize Hotkey B) Edit your fusion.fu file to include your own Custom Scripts to run as hotkeys like "Comp_Choose_Tool)3. If you'e looking for more interactive ways to adjust X and Y positions just use the on screen controls.

1. Thanks, didn't see that.2. I can't find the appropriate action to open the select tool window. But I may just download your script (which looks cool) and grep for TAB.3. On screen controls don't allow for ctrl+drag for fine adjustment.

alan bovine wrote:You can hold down ALT while dragging a connection on a node to get a big nice dropdown menu of what input to connect, its better than hitting exactly on that tiny input.

michael vorberg wrote:You can also use a right click and drag to get the "connect to" menu

Yeah, but that menu isn't much better because it requires you to do three things: grab the connector, navigate the popup menu, choose and click. It works but still isn't very straightforward. It still requires you to grab that little connector in the first place. I usually connect from child to parent (a nuke habit I think) and since the parent in most cases only has one output, the connect to menu feels pretty in the way since it requires me to do something completely needless.

But while we're on it...I forgot to mention- insert nodes between connected nodes by dropping it on the pipe.- and I find it horrorbly annoing that the order of the connectors changes all the time when you move the node or connect something to it. Yes they are color coded but my brain has to evalute every node, everytime I look at the flow, to see what's going on.

alan bovine wrote:But I wouldn't use Nuke as an example of good UX....

I feel the need to aks why but that's off topic here, so just thanks to all for your tipps.

Yeah, but that menu isn't much better because it requires you to do three things: grab the connector, navigate the popup menu, choose and click. It works but still isn't very straightforward. It still requires you to grab that little connector in the first place. I usually connect from child to parent (a nuke habit I think) and since the parent in most cases only has one output, the connect to menu feels pretty in the way since it requires me to do something completely needless.

Nuke habits or not; SOME level of adaptability on your behalf is required with any new tool. Fusion favours node output to input instead of nuke's input output. But both works in Fu. If you quickly want to insert nodes just use shift-space/TAB add tool whilst a node is selected and its automatically inserted after the selection; zero-1 clicks!

- insert nodes between connected nodes by dropping it on the pipe.

Hold Shift whilst dropping it on the pipe.

I can't find the appropriate action to open the select tool window. But I may just download your script (which looks cool) and grep for TAB.

You only need to add "TAB = "Comp_Choose_Tool"" to the hotkey section of your fusion.fu config file, which is very similar to nuke's init and menu.py files. Like Nuke; fusion is VERY scriptable and extendable.

I feel the need to aks why but that's off topic here, so just thanks to all for your tipps.

Its not off topic as far as I'm concerend, If you want to talk UX for node based tools check out all the stuff SideFX have done to modernizing working with houdini's node graph (16.5). Not just the look, but all the clever little things you can do to connect, disconnect, draw, navigate and organize the graphs. Nuke is an industry standard, but not the holy grail; there's plenty of room to choose a different path.

There has been an increase in feature requests for things that are already present in Fusion. BMD; care to help out here with communication ?

ThomasManz wrote:- Connecting nodes is very fiddly. making the connectors larger or ideally like in nuke drop them entirely and just connect with arrows or so. This gives a lot cleaner Flowgraph. Like Todd Groves already mentioned, Fusions Flowgraph isn't particularly pretty, even with his requested (and found) dot-connectors.

Have you tried playing with the Flow --> Pipe Grab Distance setting in Preferences? I found this made a big difference for me. Still not quite as good as Nuke, but waaay better than defaults which were infuriating.

ThomasManz wrote:- Oh...almost forgot. Please make the center values X and Y sliders, or anything that allows for adjusting the values interactively instead of manually typing them in.

alan bovine wrote:Nuke habits or not; SOME level of adaptability on your behalf is required with any new tool.

It's not that I'm wilfully obstruktive, it's just that this thread is for bringing up suggestions and that's what I did. I am actually very adaptable but that's just my subject view of improving fusion. And I brought that up because I thought it's easy to implement, I'm not asking for a new, super advanced, ultra high technology whatever feature. The piece of script that connects the nodes only has to evaluate:

if(the dragged connector is an input && the target node has an output){ directly connect to the output without the need of a menu}else if (the dragged connector is an output && the target node has only one input){ directly connect to the input without the need of a menu}else{ open connection menu}

alan bovine wrote:If you want to talk UX for node based tools check out all the stuff SideFX have done to modernizing working with houdini's node graph (16.5). Not just the look, but all the clever little things you can do to connect, disconnect, draw, navigate and organize the graphs

I know, I always have the latest apprentice license installed, I really enjoy and support where SideFX and Houdini is going (just like Blackmagic with Fusion, DaVinci) and I can generally agree but there are places where I would wish Houdini to be a little more like Nuke. But I know that that's arguable.

Jed Mitchell wrote:Have you tried playing with the Flow --> Pipe Grab Distance setting in Preferences?

Yes, already maxed out.

Edit:I remember one more request I have. Apart from a full multichannel workflow with exr support I find the boolean tool very cumbersome to work with. Maybe back in the days when Eyeon started Fusion having five dropboxes was very fancy but these days there should be more elegant ways to solve this. I always loose track on what the boolean tool is doing. I know, I hate that I always have to come up with Nuke comparisons but the shuffle node and the shufflecopy node illustrate the relation between interacting inputs much better. Maybe not the holy grail either but much better.With the boolean tool you end up setups like:subtract to red do nothingorsubract to red z bufferWhich is horrorble to read and interpret. And even if I set it up, everytime I look at I have to process "Wait....what is doing again?"Also: Drop the Negative operation and make a distict invert node. I don't concider inverting a boolean operation so it's not very semantic.

See the gif below, you can most definitley insert or remove nodes using the shift button. Drop them onto the pipe and it snaps into place. Not sure whats wrong with your copy of fusion. But I've never had a issue with this.

ThomasManz wrote:Drop the Negative operation and make a distict invert node. I don't concider inverting a boolean operation so it's not very semantic.

* Set channel boolean to "negative" * Press f2 to rename the node to "invert" * Copy paste the node and drop it into a text editor, save the file into your macro folder as "invert.setting". * You now have a dedicated node called invert.

Not trying to be pedantic, but fusion can fit the majority of your needs IF you spend a little time customizing it. I've done EXACTLY the above because I was tired of the way channel booleans worked. Does channelBoolean still suck ? Yes but it sucks a little less now. Is it a work around ? Not really; its being adaptive. I've got a whole folder of tools to do things like this, and it fits my workflow perfectly.

Is the transform node missing an X and Y slider ? Here you go, paste it into the node view and check out the bottom two sliders :

ThomasManz wrote:It's not that I'm wilfully obstruktive, it's just that this thread is for bringing up suggestions and that's what I did. I am actually very adaptable but that's just my subject view of improving fusion. And I brought that up because I thought it's easy to implement, I'm not asking for a new, super advanced, ultra high technology whatever feature. The piece of script that connects the nodes only has to evaluate:

if(the dragged connector is an input && the target node has an output){ directly connect to the output without the need of a menu}else if (the dragged connector is an output && the target node has only one input){ directly connect to the input without the need of a menu}else{ open connection menu}

This way you get the best of both worlds.

you can also drop the connection directly onto the node, fusion will connect to the next best input it finds. for the simple "input -> output" workflow it should work. also a "output -> input" works most of the time to the desired input connection

ThomasManz wrote:Compared to the other requests I would be happy with minor UX improvements like:

- Connecting nodes is very fiddly. making the connectors larger or ideally like in nuke drop them entirely and just connect with arrows or so. This gives a lot cleaner Flowgraph. Like Todd Groves already mentioned, Fusions Flowgraph isn't particularly pretty, even with his requested (and found) dot-connectors.

One of my biggest annoyances in Fusion since I started using it. I frequently 'miss' with a connectors.

Try dragging an input from one tool to another tool that already has a tool connected to its output (its icon body not the output square), it fails. If there is only one output why not just default to that? I would also like to see greater than 10 pixels for the Grab distance.

Often when working quickly it doesn't even connect even though I am releasing the mouse button over top of the tool, but do it slow and it works.

Talking of Render integration, would love to see Redshift in there, a few people on here recommended this for GPU rendering, I downloaded the trial and had a play with it and was blown away at the quality and speed.

Also any performance improvements would be awesome. I spend a lot of my time waiting for interactive renders. I wonder if some smarter embedded DOD would help with this, I often go through larger comps and manually set DOD to speed things up (and they do substantially).

Any 3rd party renderer integration is the business of the render software developer. There is a sdk for fusion and if somebody sees a opportunity to make a business out of a render plugin they free to make one.

But with a price of 300$ for fusion who will spend 300$ for a plugin? (which is the price of most render plugins in the 3d world)

michael vorberg wrote:Any 3rd party renderer integration is the business of the render software developer. There is a sdk for fusion and if somebody sees a opportunity to make a business out of a render plugin they free to make one.

But with a price of 300$ for fusion who will spend 300$ for a plugin? (which is the price of most render plugins in the 3d world)

BMD isn't really encouraging such integrations either, by not releasing the SDK publicly. If SDK were public, it opens up a lot more possibilities to fiddle with stuff like this. I'd take a peek just out of curiosity. But I certainly won't fill a deck of NDA papers to get it from BM.

Blender for example has several render engine integrations, most of them done not by engine developers. And I'd bet most of them started as someones simple test to see "if it goes".

Also, the fact that Blender is free doesn't stop people from buying the render engines. There is considerable amount of people using Octane and VRay with Blender which cost an infinity of Blenders price. If price of software versus plugins is some kind of limiting factor for someone, he probably either doesn't really need the tool that much or has his priorities skewed. Neither of these reasons is changed by changing the price of base software.

alan bovine wrote:See the gif below, you can most definitley insert or remove nodes using the shift button. Drop them onto the pipe and it snaps into place. Not sure whats wrong with your copy of fusion. But I've never had a issue with this.

I tried to make a gif of my situation but ended up to big and I have nohing to upload it to. I figured out that the shift+drag generally works but is VERY fiddly again. I have to be super precise in order to get it working. But granted in your gif it looks pretty easy, but not for me.

alan bovine wrote:

ThomasManz wrote:Drop the Negative operation and make a distict invert node. I don't concider inverting a boolean operation so it's not very semantic.

* Set channel boolean to "negative" * Press f2 to rename the node to "invert" * Copy paste the node and drop it into a text editor, save the file into your macro folder as "invert.setting". * You now have a dedicated node called invert.

Not trying to be pedantic, but fusion can fit the majority of your needs IF you spend a little time customizing it. I've done EXACTLY the above because I was tired of the way channel booleans worked.

Ok, again this is not about what can or cannot be done with customizing. Some folks might be skillful enought to wright their own 3d camera tracker in a lua script. This thread is about "Fusion 10 requests" and I personally would just love to see these features being implemented nativly. To provide a modern and comfortable user experience. For people who start with Fusion and don't want to spend the first 2 weeks customizing it or for people who don't want to maintain a vast number of custom scripts and stuff everytime they move to another workstation, another company who doesn't have the same custom tools infrastructure or just adding some new workstations to your pipeline which you have to settup with the same customizations as the existing ones. ....and so on.

ThomasManz wrote:This thread is about "Fusion 10 requests" and I personally would just love to see these features being implemented nativly. To provide a modern and comfortable user experience.

But this is natively tho. Its right there. Channelboolean could use a touch up but the functionality you're requesting is already there, without workarounds.

ThomasManz wrote:For people who start with Fusion and don't want to spend the first 2 weeks customizing it or for people who don't want to maintain a vast number of custom scripts and stuff everytime they move to another workstation, another company who doesn't have the same custom tools infrastructure or just adding some new workstations to your pipeline which you have to settup with the same customizations as the existing ones. ....and so on.

Your second option for not wanting to keep re-installing stuff is to use a central folder to store your comps, preferences, macros, scripts, presets etc. You already have one of these folders in your user directory, you can copy this on a usb stick and point fusion to this folder on new installs. You can even have the folder on a shared network path, so you can easily install new users, fusion versions, workstations etc without having to install ANY of the thirdparty stuff again. This is what I do at my company, store things centrally, cause like you; I don't want to spend time re-installing stuff needlessly.

EDIT: Just adding that by using a networked folder for your fusion setup lets you do things like having a specific setup on per project/show. I've got multiple projects running at the same time, and each project is pointing to a different fusion folder so it has sensible defaults relating to that projects (resolution, naming convention, tools etc)

Both options are production proven and friendly.

ThomasManz wrote:By the way, I installed some of your shortcuts like for TAB, Blur, Merge, Transform and so on and Fusion instantly feels SO much sexier.

Thanks man appreciate that, I hope they're as useful for you as they are for me.